|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 10, 2013, 06:46 PM | #201 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: Southern California.
Posts: 254
|
If you are in CALIF
If I read the law correctly, here in California, all transfers except between a parent and their biological child are required to go through an FFL, get a background check, and wait for 10 days.
This is irritating since I want to transfer a handgun to my Son-in-Law. In order for this to happen he must pass his handgun safety test, then we take the gun to the FFL and fill out the paperwork for the background check, pay the fees, and then he waits 10 days before he can pick up the gun. If I transfer it to my daughter, I just hand her the gun and it is done. This smells of California law being pushed on the nation. So, should I contact my senators (Feinstein and Boxer) and ask them to vote no? Like that will ever happen.
__________________
Clinging to my God and my guns! Luke 22:36 Quote:
|
|
April 10, 2013, 06:47 PM | #202 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,346
|
So if I am a gang banger and want to go hose down a street corner will I still be able to buy a stolen handgun from my homey without having to get a background check?
Thought so, suckas!
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." - James Madison
|
April 10, 2013, 06:51 PM | #203 |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 31, 2013
Posts: 11
|
At face value, this is a reasonable bill but I cannot support it knowing that it's just a foothold towards the next restriction.
|
April 10, 2013, 06:58 PM | #204 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
April 10, 2013, 07:05 PM | #205 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
I won't even get into the concerns raised by the HIPAA provision, the tracking of sales, or the potential to become a prohibited person based on a doctor's call with no due process. Schumer, Bloomberg and Biden all support this bill. The NRA opposes this bill. I think that is enough for me to make a decision. |
||
April 10, 2013, 08:42 PM | #206 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
So, with all the back and forth between these Senators, and their hand wringing and 'compromises', doesn't this still have to get passed in the House? And what are the chances of that happening?
|
April 10, 2013, 08:44 PM | #207 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Yes, it still has to pass the Senate and the House. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd just like to stop it as early as possible in the process.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 10, 2013, 09:21 PM | #208 |
Member
Join Date: January 9, 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 23
|
I agree, I would prefer it get's stopped in the Senate and never makes it to the house. It's just one more step in the wrong direction. The sad thing is I have talked to several gun owners and because they are not paying close attention they think this bill "makes sense".
|
April 10, 2013, 09:23 PM | #209 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Of course, to reassure us of his benevolence, Manchin closes with this: Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
April 10, 2013, 09:53 PM | #210 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
The irony of this new background check law, that many seem to be losing sight of, is the violations of the current background check law (lying on the ATF 4473) isn't being enforced and prosecuted. And their answer is more background checks that can't be enforced for the 300,000,000+/- (or some number that I don't feel like looking up right now) firearms already in circulation. Why should any Senator or Congressman, or any of us agree to more laws when the current ones aren't being enforced? How is that any kind of compromise?
And although some new feel-good clarifications may make something permissive at the federal level, unless there's specific language in this new law that makes it trump state laws, the draconian states can still impose stiffer restrictions. |
April 10, 2013, 11:56 PM | #211 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
"I can already tell you right now that New York, Illinois, Connecticut, California, and many other restrictive states will be hostile to this."
It authorizes this as a manner of compliance, if a state chooses to allow it. It does not mandate that a state do so. Hostile states will ignore it. Willie . |
April 10, 2013, 11:58 PM | #212 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Senator Coburn released a very interesting statement about the Manchin-Toomey proposal. The intriguing parts of the statement are:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 11, 2013, 01:05 AM | #213 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
As long as they are considering exceptions, why not exempt those who can readily prove they are legally allowed to own a gun, such as those licensed to carry, or those in possession of FOIDs or their equivalent?
There is not even a rational basis for those people to do a background check. If they are going to misuse a firearm, they can misuse the one they already have. |
April 11, 2013, 02:38 AM | #214 | |
Member
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: DFW area
Posts: 94
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member All calibers equalize, some calibers equalize more than others. |
|
April 11, 2013, 03:25 AM | #215 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,346
|
I agree with it needs to die as soon as possile. There is no reason to "compromise" yet again. I like the point made by maestro pistolero:
Quote:
Since the law makes no sense, and will not prevent any crimes, then why "compromise" at all? It is just feel good, and at worst it gives a toehold for future changes in verbiage to make it much more invasive and "universal".
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." - James Madison
|
|
April 11, 2013, 05:20 AM | #216 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 28, 2008
Location: tenn.
Posts: 263
|
gun control
i personally am tired of compromise. every time we do WE lose something. when will the yo-yos out there quit.they always holler for more than they want then we compromise and we lose a little more.
|
April 11, 2013, 06:51 AM | #217 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Location: Near Gainesville Fl.
Posts: 224
|
Gun Bill
I heard this is going to be a compromise so maybe if we let these people pass the bill they will get off of our backs about "assault weapons." Universal background checks, while unrealistic and it won't happen or change a thing might finally end the gun craze and put some ammo and guns back on the shelves. The only thing that will really help, besides mental health care is educating the public about firearms at a young age, so they don't grow up scared of them, and maybe will respect them more.
__________________
Criminals obey gun laws in the same way politicians follow their oaths to office - Anonymous It's better to be silent and called a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt |
April 11, 2013, 07:32 AM | #218 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 11, 2012
Posts: 527
|
Quote:
Look at the FBI stats, they show that handguns are used far more than long guns (assault weapons) and yet the govt.s wants to ban the AW's.... They are going after the easy target, the target that they can get the most support for because they (in their words) are "weapons of war and serve no purpose in civilian hands". Its an easy sell to the uninformed public. |
|
April 11, 2013, 08:11 AM | #219 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Debate has already started. Mike Lee is up pointing out that nobody has read the text of key components of the bill and that it is perfectly reasonable to delay debate on this until they have.
Vote on motion to proceed scheduled for 11am Eastern. Senate starting their day now. Reid up. Time between parties to be divided equally and controlled by leaders. Asks the Senate to forego the 30 hour delay after motion vote so they can begin debate of the bill immediately. Says the first bill to be offered will be the Toomey-Manchin Amendment (that not even other Senators have seen yet - big surprise). Reid says bill will be open to all related amendments. McConnell up now explaining why he opposes the motion to proceed. Blumenthal up now. Babbling. Blumenthal supports Toomey-Manchin Amendment. Promises to spearhead magazine ban and AWB amendments. Sen. Murphy talking about dead children to advance various bans. Blumenthal now claiming gun lobby is trying to create a registry of all the mentally ill people in the United States? Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; April 11, 2013 at 09:12 AM. |
April 11, 2013, 09:11 AM | #220 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 11, 2013, 09:14 AM | #221 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
April 11, 2013, 09:21 AM | #222 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Mike Lee up now. Reading pro-Second Amendment stories from citizens and arguing that the Second Amendment is a core constitutional right that should be subject to 60 votes. Says not a single Senator has yet seen Toomey-Manchin bill.
|
April 11, 2013, 09:23 AM | #223 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
|
I have been watching some of the senate "debate" this morning on CSPAN2, against my better judgement. Listening to Senators talk usually makes me want to drink heavily. Anyway, I can't help but scream at my computer monitor from time to time each time the word "compromise" is mentioned. I must not understand the definition of the word as they are using it. I thought both parties got something they wanted out of a compromise, yet I can't for the life of me figure out what it is gun owners are getting out of this deal.
Also, surprisingly, one of the Senators from Conn. said "this is a good first step....". Well, there you have it. The reason most gun owners don't agree to any of this nonsense, it is not the end game. It is just the first step. |
April 11, 2013, 09:30 AM | #224 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
April 11, 2013, 09:38 AM | #225 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Leahy babbling now. Coming off slightly senile; but not in a funny Biden way.
Cornyn up talking about mental health issues and reporting. Points out lack of prosecutions for NICS checks. Cornyn supports filibuster making same points as Mike Lee. Pause. Vote for cloture in 5 minutes. Vote in progress. Motion passed. Filibuster is broken on motion to proceed. Still one more chance to filibuster. Now we are waiting on the end of the vote and to find out what he schedule will be. Hopefully they make Reid wait 30 hours before starting debate so we may have a chance to see the Toomey-Manchin Amendment (first amendment up according to Reid). Vote on motion to proceed: 68-31 ROLL CALL VOTE http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00095 Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---68 Alexander (R-TN) Ayotte (R-NH) Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Burr (R-NC) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Collins (R-ME) Coons (D-DE) Corker (R-TN) Cowan (D-MA) Donnelly (D-IN) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Flake (R-AZ) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Graham (R-SC) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Heinrich (D-NM) Heitkamp (D-ND) Heller (R-NV) Hirono (D-HI) Hoeven (R-ND) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (D-SD) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Kirk (R-IL) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Manchin (D-WV) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Toomey (R-PA) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wicker (R-MS) Wyden (D-OR) NAYs ---31 Barrasso (R-WY) Begich (D-AK) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Coats (R-IN) Cochran (R-MS) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) Cruz (R-TX) Enzi (R-WY) Fischer (R-NE) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Inhofe (R-OK) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (R-WI) Lee (R-UT) McConnell (R-KY) Moran (R-KS) Murkowski (R-AK) Paul (R-KY) Portman (R-OH) Pryor (D-AR) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Rubio (R-FL) Scott (R-SC) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Not Voting - 1 Lautenberg (D-NJ) Reid once again pushing to take up the debate immediately after lunch rather than wait the usual 30 hours. Still wants the first amendment to be Toomey-Manchin, although given that Sen. Cornyn said even the Senators still haven't seen any text, I don't know how they are going to pull that off. Amendment schedule: Toomey-Manchin AWB Magazine ban After this they will allow the Republicans to catch up and the alternate D/R amendments. Senate recessed until 2:30 eastern Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; April 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM. |
|
|